Evaluation of the Process of Decentralization in Kenya - Case Study Example

EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS OF DECENTRALIZATION IN KENYA by Student’s Name       Code+ Course Name Professor’s Name University Name City Date Evaluation of the Process of Decentralization in Kenya Introduction The primary goal of government is to acquire resources through formal processes, organize and use them to provide services to related individuals (Mccaffery & Jones 2001, p. 33). Such services include comprehensive healthcare, quality education, and stable security among others. The services determine the well-being of a society in relation to high quality of life and civilization in the way of life. A central government engages different processes to provide the essential services to every level of the community. In other words, the government is an intricate system that involves structured processes with the aim of improving quality of life amongst concerned citizens. In most countries, the jurisdiction of the central government over service delivery functions is included in the relevant policies. The services are organized into categories according to their nature. The groups determine the formation of various organs of most governments. In other words, governments operate through various ministries or bodies to deliver services to their people. Such agencies include legislative and executive, general services, ministry of defense, public health and sanitation and transportation among others. The specific processes in the organs are also inscribed in various constitutions. In the context of the government, decentralization may be perceived as the process of devolving all the operations from a central government to regional offices in the country (Litvack et al., 1998, p.4). In most cases, decentralization processes are inscribed in the laws of different countries. A process of decentralization follows the improvement needs of different countries. In other words, decentralization processes differ in most countries (Litvack et al., 1998, p. 4). Some countries devolve the management of all services to their local offices. Other countries are selective on what they devolve to local governments. For instance, they may devolve the services to their local offices, but reserve the overall authority or control of resources to the central government. The consensus regarding decentralization is that it facilitates a fast and efficient delivery of services to communities (Ahmad et al., 2006, p. 72). It also promotes equity in the development of different regions of the country. Furthermore, it encourages the participation planning processes of various activities. Decentralization may also be understood in the context of the systems theory. The theory underlines the responsiveness of organized systems regarding external environmental changes. Such systems adapt to external environment changes so as to maintain stability in their primary structures. This paper seeks to evaluate the decentralization program from Kenya. The evaluation procedures follow the theory of decentralization. The Theory Decentralization Ferlie et al., (2007, p. 371) maintains that decentralization has existed as a better management strategy compared to others in the current century. Countries such as France as well as Germany have embraced the devolved system of government. In general, an increase in the support of decentralization has increased since 2001 among European countries (Ferlie et al., 2007, p. 371). However, it is a concept that attracts diverse opinions and applications. Therefore, it is important to establish a universal understanding regarding the concept. Otherwise, it would be difficult to evaluate the Kenyan decentralization policy. The concept of decentralization can be traced back to the time when management concepts emerged in the world. Apparently, debates regarding the perception of decentralization still exist in some countries. For instance, American policy makers still debate over the rights and roles of the federal, state and local governments (Ferlie et al., 2007, p. 373). Understanding the concept of decentralization may require a person to acknowledge the fact that it can be applied in many situations. Within public management, decentralization may involve scattering power from few to a large number of people (Ferlie et al., 2007, p. 373). For example, the government may decide to transfer the responsibility of managing public health sectors to related local governments or regional offices. Five kinds of dispersing power from a central point to other points can be deduced from the context of this discussion. The first type involves political and administrative decentralization. Political decentralization may include distributing power from the central political office to other elected offices (Ahmad & Brosio 2006, p. 273). Administrative decentralization may imply the distribution of authority from a central management office to other sub-management offices (Ferlie et al., 2007, p. 374). In regional decentralization, authority is distributed from superior to inferior territorial groups. The concept of decentralization is regarded as territorial. In internal decentralization, power may be distributed within an existing structure. In external decentralization, power is distributed from one structure of an operation to another. Vertical decentralization means distributing power along a chain of command. It treats people in a horizontal level as having equal authority. In other words, they have same decision-making authorities (Ferlie et al., 2007, p. 375). The last type includes competitive decentralization. It involves different responsibilities that are perceived as fair to different individuals or agencies. The Benefits and Measurement of Decentralization Analyzing the decentralization with respect to related benefits provides a basis for evaluating the Kenyan decentralization policy. Specifically, it provides a grading mechanism through which the success of the Kenyan decentralization policy can be determined or measured. It can be argued that it encourages countries to design frameworks that facilitate equal development of local areas within a country (Oliveira & Cardinal 2009, p. 531). The political and economic history of Kenya reveals that resources were gathered from local governments and channeled towards the central government. Practical implementation of decentralization policies reverses this process. It promotes the development of local areas by retaining resources at local levels. It can also be argued that decentralization facilitates good governance by encouraging transparency, honesty and fairness among others. It supports the practice of aspects of good governance because power is decongested from one office to local or regional offices (Oliveira & Cardinal 2009, p. 531). Giving local governments the authority to manage the functions of the government will discourage the dominance of the central government agencies in management processes. Correspondingly, it discourages offices from conspiring with an aim of embezzling the resources of the state. Decentralization also increases the participation of local people in decision-making processes (Zhou 2009, p. 2). It increases the awareness of people regarding the operations of the government. Therefore, individuals can hold the government accountable over issues that affect their lives. The increased awareness and participation facilitates a fast process for determining relevant services. Every community has unique needs that they would like the government to meet. Increased participation allows the local population to suggest the services they require at the local level (Zhou 2009, p. 2). Increased participation also fosters social cohesion among local people. It also promotes reconciliation among different groups of people. The argument may be true for communities that have various ethnic tribes. Decentralization supports a smooth division of labor within the structures of operation of government. The division of labor allows governments to focus their resources on high-level functions such as attracting investors in related countries (Zhou 2009, p. 3). Decentralization encourages innovation, enhanced problem-solving capacity and good leadership skills among others (Alderman 1998, p. 3). The processes of change increase the flexibility of government in dealing with challenges that emerge in different communities. When various people participate in executing functions of the government, they offer a range of skills and experience. Decentralization helps local people to mobilize resources to facilitate development processes. In decentralized governments, civil societies are appointed to carry out oversight functions. Specifically, they ensure that the functions and structures of operation are correctly devolved to local governments. Kenya’s Decentralization Policy Lutz (1996, p. 55) maintains that the need for a decentralized system of government In Kenya was discovered as early as the 1970s. Specifically, the government of Kenya identified the decentralized system as a strategy for addressing their rural development challenges. In other words, the country was developing unequally. In 1983, the central government of the country formed the District Focus for Rural Development to promote rural development (Lutz 1996, p. 55). Most functions were transferred to the district levels. Such functions included village water systems, road access development and improvement of municipal markets among others (Lutz 1996, p. 55). However, the formation of the ministry did not facilitate efficient decentralization processes. From that time till September 2010, the central government of the country was largely responsible for all the delivery of services to local people. The new constitution adopted by Kenya in September, 2010, contained the new devolution policy (Hope 2012, p. 152). Under Kenya’s new constitution, the public sector comprises of a central government and forty-seven elected county governments. The aim of the decentralization process was to facilitate cohesion and reconciliation following the 2007 post-election violence that destabilized the country. It also aims at creating efficiency and accountability in the public sector (Boex & Kelly 2011, p. 1). The decentralized system of governance was seen as a better alternative to the centralized government. In particular, the charter review committee under the leadership of professor Yash Pal Ghai maintained that centralized management facilitates poor governance. World Bank's analysis of developing countries with centralized governance revealed multiple symptoms linked to poor management. Firstly, confusions arise over private and public matters of the state in centralized control. Secondly, such a system of governance discourages the formation of frameworks regarding development and practical application of laws. Thirdly, it increases tax on local traders, forcing them to prioritize on securing rent other than expanding their operations. Lastly, it encourages lack of transparency in decision-making processes. Such factors and others facilitated the adoption of a devolved government in Kenya. According to the constitution, a significant amount of the government’s functions have been transferred to county levels. The constitution also dictates that 15% of the national revenues should be shared with the local governments (Hope 2012, p. 153). According to article 174 of the Kenya’s constitution, one of the aims for the adoption of devolution includes improvement of politics and leadership (Boex & Kelly 2011, p. 2). The political objectives of the devolution process involve promoting accountability, democracy, empowerment and greater participation (Boex & Kelly 2011, p. 2). The social and economic objective of the devolution process involves promoting social and economic development, improving access to public services and ensuring equity (Boex & Kelly 2011, p. 3). The process of decentralization also aims at protecting the rights of minority and marginalized groups among others. Evaluation of the Decentralization Process in Kenya Richard Vengroff and Ben Salem hypothesized that good governance is directly dependent upon the quality and extent of implementation of the decentralization program (Vengroff & Salem 1992, p. 473). However, as established in the preceding discussions, the decentralization process of the country is determined by the needs of the people. The varying nature of the decentralization process according to countries make it difficult to measure or analyze the impacts of the process in such countries (Vengroff & Salem 1992, p. 473). The confusion also arises from the varying ways the concept can be applied (Conyers 1986, p. 88). For instance, the idea of decentralization may be used to define various organizational processes and structures. The situation is further complicated by uncertainty in the way the conception is being used in the circumstances described above (Conyers 1986, p. 88). They also maintained that decentralization is an important management strategy that focuses improving governance in developing nations such as Kenya. The assessment of the decentralization policy in Kenya follows the analytic model developed by Richard Vengroff and Ben Salem. John and Chathukulam (2003, p. 3) explain that the quality of the decentralization process is dependent upon three factors; the scope, intensity and commitment. The scope includes the area of coverage, population and participatory opportunities for the local people. In 2000, the executive office in collaboration with the national assembly of Kenya formed the Local Authority Service Delivery Plan (LASDAP). The primary aim of the committee was to facilitate public participation in the monitoring and usage of funds. The same intentions were carried over to the decentralized government under the new constitution. The analysis of the performance of the board and devolved system of government reveals that the goals have never been achieved. Contrary to the expectations, public participation reduced even further. Most of the financial resources were used to pay personnel wages, administrative overhead costs and numerous debts. According to the plan, the devolution program is intended to cover all regions of the country (Okombo & Indangasi 2011, p. 82). It is also meant to include all Kenyans in the development agenda targeted by the new constitution. The intensity factor includes the type of decentralization. Such types include de-concentration, delegation, decentralization and privatization processes (John & Chathukulam 2003, p. 3). It also includes the level and the number of workforces covered and the financial resources available for local governments. It further includes the manner of expenditure between the central and local governments (John & Chathukulam 2003, p. 3). Kenyan government adopted devolution of government to local levels. The devolution process is not entirely intrinsic of other types of decentralization methods. For instance, power has been de-congested from the executive office of the central government. The president has no authority to appoint cabinet secretaries without the approval of national assembly (Okombo & Indangasi 2011, p. 84). The same case applies to Kenyan representatives in foreign countries. The president is also expected to delegate duties to his deputy in his absence or cases of incapacitation. Under commitment factor, a devolution program can be measured in terms of a well-defined legal structure. It can also be defined in terms of reliability during challenging times, the quality of the process and grant base (John & Chathukulam 2003, p. 3). Other factors of consideration include separate local government function, tax base, clarity of roles and support from the central government (John & Chathukulam 2003, p. 3). The new constitution in Kenya presents a clear legal structure that is led by the chief justice. The statutory functions of the judiciary are the most successfully devolved in the program. Court cases can be processed at the local level without travelling to the judicial headquarters (Mbondenyi & Ambani 2013, p. 136). Various reports indicate that cases are efficiently and promptly decided. The reports also indicate that the main judicial office has the time to concentrate on administrative issues of the legal systems. They also have time to develop and revise policies that affect the sector. The central government has been supporting the program by forming commissions to facilitate a fast implementation of the constitution. The decentralization program forms the backbone of the new constitution. One of the weakest points in the decentralization process in Kenya lies in the structure of the process. The plan for implementing decentralization in Kenya is a challenge due to the amount of resources required to implement it. The devolution plan of the country consists of a central government and forty-seven counties (Mbondenyi & Ambani 2013, p. 136). The central government has functions that are almost similar to the functions devolved to the local level. The central government of Kenya consists of the executive office, the national and senate assemblies. The executive office comprises of the president, deputy president, attorney general, director of public prosecutions and twenty-two cabinet secretaries (Mbondenyi & Ambani 2013, p. 137). The cabinet ministers oversee the operations of the existing ministries. The same functions have been devolved to the county levels. The county governments comprise of the administrative office and county assemblies. Reducing the powers of the central government is one of the strongest points of the devolution program. It ensures shared responsibility for sensitive matters that may affect the operations of the government. A comparison of three arms of the Kenyan government proves a serious duplication of roles. The senate assembly regulates the functions of the governor. Specifically, it approves revenue allocation that goes to county governments. It also enacts bills governing the operations at county level represent the interest of the local governments at the national level (Okombo & Indangasi 2011, p. 82). The national assembly has roles such as representing the interest of their constituents at the national level and enacting legislation for the national and county government. Other functions of the national assembly include approving bills and budgets drafted by the senate assembly. Correspondingly, the county assemblies regulate the functions of governors. Within county governments, there are county executive committees, county assemblies and county public service. The county assemblies enact laws at the local level, approves plans and policies within the county and act as the oversight for the county executives (Okombo & Indangasi 2011, p. 83). Recently, the president created many semi-autonomous regional agencies to carry out the functions of the government at the county level. According to the Constitution, the same functions should be executed by governors at the county levels. All the tasks of the sample three arms of the government can be carried out by one assembly. The national assembly can carry out the functions of the senate and the national assembly. The structuring of the roles of the central and county government of Kenya is one of the weakest points of the devolution program. The duplication of the tasks has increased the need for more resources to implement the plan fully. In other words, the budget has exceeded the expectation and resource capability of the country. Large amounts of financial resources are used in paying the wages of the increased number of employees. The situation has compelled the government to impose more taxes on citizens. For instance, taxes have been raised on car fuel and household commodities. Similarly, the cost of doing business in Kenya has risen since the beginning of the implementation of the program. In general, the cost of living has become expensive with the implementation of the devolution program. One of the aims of the devolution program was to improve living conditions by lowering expenses incurred by families or individuals (Boex & Kelly 2011, p. 3). Conclusion Rondinelli (1992, p. 2) asserts that most developing countries adopted decentralization because of the challenges involved in central planning and management. Even though the implementation process of the devolution process is not yet conclusive in Kenya, people can now access government services much quickly than before. The revenue allocation to the counties has enabled individual counties to upgrade their road networks. It has also facilitated the development of rural electrification program in most areas of the countries (Mbondenyi et al., 2011, p. 225). The devolution program has also reduced the cost of primary education in all public schools (UNHSP 2002, p. 33). In addition, most services can now be found within local hospitals. People do not have to be referred to provincial or national hospitals to get the services that they require. The program has developed a sense of purpose in most citizens. The sense of purpose originates from the increase in awareness regarding the operations of the government (UNHSP 2002, p. 30). For example, most people in Kenya use social media platforms to push their respective leaders to initiate development projects back in their county governments. In other words, Citizens have realized the importance of resource mobilization. The IMF (2014, p. 5) has observed that one of the key areas that need improvement is the definition of the roles of the various government agencies. The report also reveals that resources are being wasted through poor financial management strategies both at the national and county level. References List (UNHSP) UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME. (2002). Local democracy and decentralization in East and Southern Africa: experiences from Uganda, Kenya, Botswana, Tanzania and Ethiopia. Nairobi, UN-Habitat. Ahmad, E., & Brosio, G. (2006). Handbook of fiscal federalism. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. Ahmad, R, & Administration and Governance. (2006). The role of public administration in building a harmonious society: selected proceedings from the Annual Conference of the Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG). [China], China National School of Administration. Alderman, H. (1998). Social assistance in Albania decentralization and targeted transfers. Washington, DC, World bank. Boex, J., & Kelly, R. (2011). Fiscal Decentralization in Kenya: A Small Step or Giant Leap? Urban Institute Publications. Conyers, D 1986, "Decentralisation and Development: A Framework for Analysis", Community Development Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp 88-97. Ferlie, E., Lynn, L. E., & Pollitt, C. (2007). The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hope, K. R. (2012). The political economy of development in Kenya. New York, Continuum International Pub. Group. I.M.F., AFRICAN DEPT. (2014). Kenya. Washington, International Monetary Fund. John, M. S. and Chathukulam, J. (2003), Measuring decentralisation: the case of Kerala (India). Public Admin. Development. John, M. S., & Chathukulam, J 2003, Measuring decentralization: The case of Kerala India. Public Administration and Development, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 347-360. Litvack, J. I., Ahmad, J., & Bird, R. M. (1998). Rethinking decentralization in developing countries. Washington, DC, World Bank. Lutz, E. (1996). Decentralization and biodiversity conservation. Washington, DC, World Bank. Mbondenyi, M. K., & Ambani, O. (2013). New constitutional law of Kenya: principles, government and human rights. Nairobi, Kenya: LawAfrica Publishing. Mbondenyi, M. K., Lumumba, P. L. O., & Odero, S. O. (2011). The constitution of Kenya: contemporary readings. Nairobi, Kenya, LawAfrica Pub. Mccaffery, J., & Jones, L. R. (2001). Budgeting and financial management in the federal government. Greenwich, Conn, Information Age. Okombo, O., & Indangasi, H. (2011). Challenging the rulers: a leadership model for good governance. Nairobi [etc.], [East African educational publishers [etc.]. Oliveira, J., & Cardinal, P. (2009). One country, two systems, three legal orders perspectives of evolution : essays on Macau's legal status after the resumption of sovereignty by China. Berlin, Springer. Rondinelli, D.A. (1992). "Implementing Decentralisation Programmes in Asia: a comparative analysis", in B.C. Smith (ed.), Progress in Development Administration, John Wiley & Sons, London . Vengroff, R. and Salem, H. B. (1992). Assessing the impact of decentralization on governance: A comparative methodological approach and application to Tunisia. Public Admin. Dev. Zhou, Y. (2009). Decentralization, democracy, and development: recent experience from Sierra Leone. Washington, D.C., World Bank. Read More